MCKENZIE INTERCHANGE PROJECT

BKL CONSULTANTS LTD acoustics noise vibration MCKENZIE INTERCHANGE PROJECT PREPARED FOR: MAY 2016 REVISION 1

NOTICE BKL Consultants Ltd. (BKL) has prepared this report for the sole and exclusive benefit of Urban Systems Ltd. (the Client) in support of the project environmental assessment under applicable regulations. BKL disclaims any liability to the Client and to third parties in respect of the publication, reference, quoting or distribution of this report or any of its contents to and reliance thereon by any third party. This document contains the expression of the professional opinion of BKL, at the time of its preparation, as to the matters set out herein, using its professional judgment and reasonable care. The information provided in this report was compiled from existing documents and data provided by the Client, sound pressure level data measured by BKL, and by applying currently accepted industry practice and modelling methods. Unless expressly stated otherwise, assumptions, data and information supplied by or gathered from other sources (including the Client, other consultants, testing laboratories and equipment suppliers, etc.) upon which BKL s opinion as set out herein is based has not been verified by BKL; BKL makes no representation as to its accuracy and disclaims all liability with respect thereto. This document is meant to be read as a whole, and sections or parts thereof should thus not be read or relied upon out of context. BKL reserves the right to modify the contents of this report, in whole or in part, to reflect any new information that becomes available. If any conditions become apparent that differ significantly from the understanding of conditions as presented in this report, BKL should be notified immediately to reassess the conclusions provided herein. i PAGE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BKL Consultants Ltd. (BKL) has been retained by Urban Systems Ltd. Ltd. (USL) to provide an environmental noise assessment for the proposed McKenzie Interchange Project (the Project), located in Saanich, BC. The Project includes the construction of a partial clover leaf interchange at the intersection of Highway 1 and Admirals Road and McKenzie Avenue and additional lanes on Highway 1 and McKenzie Avenue. BKL s environmental noise assessment aimed to identify noise-sensitive land uses potentially impacted by traffic noise within the Project construction limits; evaluate existing noise conditions at potentially impacted noise-sensitive receivers; predict the future noise environment 10 years after Project completion; assess the noise impact of the Project according to criteria outlined in the 2014 Policy for Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts from New and Upgraded Numbered Highways (the Policy) published by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MOTI); and evaluate preliminary noise mitigation strategies where warranted by the Policy. To predict Project-related traffic noise and assess the impacts of such noise against the Policy criteria, BKL created a 3-D noise model that considered the results of baseline noise measurements conducted in September 2015 and March 2016; existing and projected future traffic volumes; the topography and ground conditions within the Project site; and the geometry of the new roadways and interchange alignment. BKL compared post-project (10 years after Project completion) noise predictions to pre-project levels in order to rate impacts at the noise-sensitive land uses as Minor, Moderate or Severe. According to the Policy, residential land uses effected by Moderate and Severe impacts should be considered for mitigation. According to BKL s assessment, predictions and analysis, 76 of 174 residences in the study area lie in Moderate noise impact zones. Furthermore, two residences lie in Severe noise impact zones. Finally, two schools, École Marigold Elementary and St. Joseph s Elementary, have classrooms that would be exposed to noise levels that exceed the maximum one-hour equivalent noise level threshold outlined in the Policy. BKL assessed 3 metre tall noise walls at six residential locations, with the following results: Five of the six noise walls would be acoustically effective; noise received at the first floor of fronting residences would be reduced on average by 5 dba or more. The estimated installed cost of the noise walls exceeds the Policy s cost guidelines; therefore, increasing wall heights or lengths further may not be cost effective. ii PAGE BKL CONSULTANTS LTD. 0890-15A REVISION 1 MAY 2016

BKL also assessed the acoustical performance of noise walls at the educational facilities, with the following results: A noise wall that is 3 metres high and 140 metres long would provide adequate mitigation at École Marigold Elementary. A noise wall that is 5 metres high and 120 metres long was predicted to provide a noise benefit of 6 dba for the portable classroom at St. Joseph s Elementary; however, the resulting classroom noise level would still be 4 dba above the criterion. Additional mitigation should be investigated for the St. Joseph s Elementary portable classroom, including providing alternative ventilation so that windows can be closed and building facade improvements in order to determine the best means to meet the Policy criterion. BKL recommends that further noise mitigation detailed design be undertaken in accordance with the Policy. iii PAGE

TABLE OF CONTENTS Notice... i Executive Summary... ii Table of Contents... iv List of Tables... v List of Figures... v List of Appendices... vi List of Abbreviations and Acronyms... vii 1 Introduction... 1 2 Project Description... 1 3 Study Objectives... 2 4 Assessment Critieria... 2 4.1 Residences... 2 4.2 Educational Facilities... 3 5 Study Area... 3 6 Existing Noise Conditions... 4 6.1 Baseline Monitoring at Residences... 4 6.2 Baseline Monitoring at Educational Facilities... 5 7 Noise Modelling Methodology... 6 7.1 Acoustical Model... 6 7.1.1 Ground Absorption... 6 7.1.2 Meteorological Conditions... 7 7.1.3 Topography and Obstacles... 7 7.1.4 Roadway Geometry... 7 7.1.5 Traffic Inputs... 7 7.2 Model Calibration... 8 7.3 Receivers... 8 8 Noise Prediction Results... 9 8.1 Existing Scenario 2015... 9 8.2 Future Scenario 2028... 10 9 Noise Impact Assessment... 11 9.1 Residences... 11 9.2 Educational Facilities... 13 10 Traffic Noise Mitigation... 14 10.1 Residences... 14 10.1.1 Proposed Noise Wall Locations and Geometry... 14 10.1.2 Wall Insertion Loss Predictions... 16 10.1.3 Cost-benefit Considerations... 17 10.2 Educational Facilities... 18 iv PAGE BKL CONSULTANTS LTD. 0890-15A REVISION 1 MAY 2016

11 Conclusions and Recommendations... 18 12 References... 19 List of Tables Table 6-1: Baseline Measurement Locations at Residences... 4 Table 6-2: Residential Monitoring Results and Noise Impact Thresholds... 5 Table 6-3: Short-Term Measurement Locations... 5 Table 6-4: School Measurement Results and Noise Impact Threshold... 6 Table 7-1: Increases from 2014 to 2028 in Annual Average Daily Traffic... 7 Table 9-1: Noise Impact Assessment Summary for Residences... 11 Table 9-2: Predicted Noise Impact for Educational Facilities Pre-Mitigation... 13 Table 10-1: Noise Wall Numbering, Location and Geometry... 15 Table 10-2: Summary of Proposed Wall Alignments... 16 Table 10-3: Cost Estimate of Proposed Wall Alignments... 17 List of Figures Figure 2-1: Study Area and Project Limits... 1 Figure 5-1: Study Area and Receiver Groupings... 4 Figure 7-1: Example 3-D View of Noise Source, Ground Contours and Receivers... 9 Figure 8-1: Predicted Existing Noise Contours... 10 Figure 8-2: Predicted Future Noise Contours... 11 Figure 9-1: Comparison of Pre- and Post-Project Noise... 12 Figure 9-2: Increase in Noise Relative to Pre-Project Noise... 13 Figure 10-1: Moderately or Severely Impacted Dwellings in the Study Area... 14 Figure 10-2: Wall Alignments and Labelling... 15 Figure 10-3: Predicted Future Noise Contours with Modelled Noise Walls... 16 v PAGE

Figure 10-4: Predicted Increase in Noise from Existing to Future with Mitigation... 17 List of Appendices Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Glossary Introduction to Sound and Environmental Noise Assessment Noise Impact Assessment Result Table Barrier Insertion Loss Histogram vi PAGE BKL CONSULTANTS LTD. 0890-15A REVISION 1 MAY 2016

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms MCKENZIE INTERCHANGE PROJECT Abbreviation/Acronym AADT ANSI μpa BKL db dba HVAC ISO km km/h L d L dn L eq L eq(max-hr) L n m MOTI the Project the Policy USL Definition annual average daily traffic American National Standards Institute micropascal BKL Consultants Ltd. decibel A-weighted decibel heating, ventilation and air conditioning International Organization for Standardization kilometre kilometres per hour daytime (7 am to 10 pm) equivalent sound level day-night equivalent sound level equivalent sound level maximum one-hour equivalent sound level nighttime (10 pm to 7 am) equivalent sound level metre British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure McKenzie Interchange Project 2014 Policy for Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts from New and Upgraded Numbered Highways Urban Systems Ltd. vii PAGE

1 INTRODUCTION BKL Consultants Ltd. (BKL) has been retained by Urban Systems Ltd. (USL) to provide an environmental noise assessment for the proposed McKenzie Interchange Project (the Project). Because it involves an upgrade of an existing numbered highway, the Project requires a noise impact study to determine the potential need for mitigation according to the criteria outlined by the BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MOTI) in 2014 Policy for Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts from New and Upgraded Numbered Highways (The Policy). This report documents existing noise exposure levels predicted at noise-sensitive land uses near the Project, the future noise climate predicted 10 years after the completion of the Project, noise impact assessment results and potential noise mitigation options. 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project scope includes a new interchange at the intersection of Highway 1 and Admirals Road / McKenzie Avenue a pedestrian overpass for Galloping Goose Trail across McKenzie Avenue and replacement of the pedestrian overpass crossing Highway 1, and widening the highway and McKenzie Avenue. The Project area spans a distance of approximately 2 kilometres along Highway 1 and the sections of Admirals Road / McKenzie Avenue directly to the north and south of the intersection. The surrounding properties are mainly residential land use with the exception of three schools northwest of the intersection. Figure 2-1: Study Area and Project Limits The final interchange design is a partial cloverleaf with Highway 1 passing underneath Admirals Road / McKenzie Avenue. On the north side of Highway 1, Galloping Goose Trail will pass over 1 PAGE

McKenzie Avenue on a pedestrian bridge. To either side of the pedestrian bridge, embankments will be built sloping down to connect to the existing Galloping Goose Trail. This design will improve traffic flow and pedestrian and cycling safety. McKenzie Avenue will be widened to include another southbound lane. The additional lane will extend north of Highway 1, continuing past Burnside Road and ending before the Interurban Road overpass. 3 STUDY OBJECTIVES The objectives of this noise impact study were to identify noise-sensitive land uses potentially impacted by the Project; evaluate existing noise conditions at potentially impacted noise-sensitive receivers; predict the future noise environment 10 years after Project completion; assess the noise impact according to the Policy; and evaluate noise mitigation options where warranted by the Policy. 4 ASSESSMENT CRITIERIA The Policy outlines the required methodology for assessing the impact of traffic noise. It also describes mitigation considerations for noise-sensitive land uses adjacent to the new construction or upgrading of a numbered highway. According to the Policy, noise-sensitive land uses include residences; educational facilities, such as schools, preschools and commercial daycare centres; hospitals; libraries; churches; museums; passive parks and other land uses where quiet and tranquility are essential attributes. Eligible noise-sensitive land uses must predate the highway project by receiving planning approvals prior to the first public announcement of the highway project or designation (through gazetting) of the affected lands as potential future highway rights-of-way. 4.1 Residences For residential land uses, the Policy sets noise impact thresholds to identify areas where noise mitigation consideration is warranted. The Policy quantifies its thresholds with the noise metric outdoor day-night average sound Level (L dn ). This metric is similar to the 24-hour equivalent sound level (L eq24 ) but it applies a 10 dba penalty to nighttime noise to account for the public s greater sensitivity to noise between 10 pm and 7 am. Post-project (10 years after project completion) noise predictions are compared to pre-project levels in order to rate impacts at the noise-sensitive receivers as Minor, Moderate, or Severe. Residential land uses within the Moderate and Severe impact zones are considered for mitigation. According to the Policy, the main objective of noise mitigation is to reduce the total post-project noise exposure at fronting residences by at least 5 dba. A noise reduction of 5 dba corresponds to approximately a 30% decrease in perceived loudness and is considered the smallest noise reduction that is clearly noticeable. 2 PAGE BKL CONSULTANTS LTD. 0890-15A REVISION 1 MAY 2016

The Policy also gives benchmark mitigation cost guidelines for residential units that are directly benefiting from the noise mitigation based on the noise impact situation for that unit. The Policy reads: [The] benchmark mitigation cost guideline... [is] $25,000 per directly-benefiting residential unit in Moderate noise impact situations, and $40,000 per directly-benefiting residential unit in Severe noise impact situations. 4.2 Educational Facilities For educational land uses, the Policy sets a criterion based on the loudest one-hour equivalent sound level, L eq(max-hr), inside classrooms. The Policy states: 5 STUDY AREA Mitigation measures will be considered at educational facilities where it is anticipated that... the post-project traffic noise levels, ten years after the project completion, will reach L eq(max-hr) 40 dba inside classrooms or other highly noise-sensitive spaces. The study area extends from Eaton Avenue along Highway 1 to Interurban Road and includes sections of Admirals Road and McKenzie Avenue near the intersection at Highway 1. The south extent along Admirals Road is at the Esson Road intersection and the north extent along McKenzie Avenue is near the Interurban Road overpass. The exact extents were determined by the available ground elevation contours provided by USL. The study area should include all residential and non-residential noise-sensitive land uses where the Policy threshold criteria could potentially be exceeded. On this basis, all first and second row housing and schools fronting the Project extents have been included. The first row of noisesensitive buildings have the greatest chance of exceeding the Policy noise criteria because the allowable Project noise increase becomes smaller as the existing noise exposure increases (i.e., as the setback distance from the highway decreases, existing levels increase since the highway is the dominant existing noise source in all cases for the Project.) Using these guidelines, there are approximately 174 first and second row noise-sensitive residential land uses, and 3 noise-sensitive educational facilities. The study area has been divided into six groups of residences in similar acoustical environments. Figure 5-1 identifies the receiver groups and shows the study area. 3 PAGE

Figure 5-1: Study Area and Receiver Groupings 6 EXISTING NOISE CONDITIONS Baseline noise monitoring was conducted on September 21 22, 2015, and March 3 4, 2016, to measure the existing noise exposure at locations within the study area. Measurements were taken at five residential sites (R1, R2, R4, R5, R6) for 24 hours each. Thirty-minute measurements were performed at a sixth residential site, R3, and inside three classrooms (S1-S3). The 30-minute measurements were performed simultaneously with 24-hour noise measurements so that the variation in traffic noise throughout the day could be calculated. The following sound level meters were used: Brüel & Kjær 2250, Larson Davis 820 and 01dB DUO. All meters meet the Type 1 specifications in ANSI S1.4:1983. The sound level meters were field calibrated before and after each measurement using a Brüel & Kjær Type 4230 calibrator. Weather conditions during the measurement periods were clear with no significant wind. 6.1 Baseline Monitoring at Residences Table 6-1 lists the long-term noise monitoring locations at the residential sites. Table 6-1: Baseline Measurement Locations at Residences Location Address Description R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 1181 Portage Road 1085 Burnside Road 3151 Esson Road 3241 Admirals Road 700 Burnside Road W At north side of property 26 m from Hwy 1 centreline At south side of property 36 m from Hwy 1 centreline At northeast corner of property 65 m from Hwy 1 centreline At southwest corner of property 44 m from Hwy 1 centreline At southwest corner of property 24 m from McKenzie Ave centreline Height Relative to Ground [m] 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 2.5 4 PAGE BKL CONSULTANTS LTD. 0890-15A REVISION 1 MAY 2016

Location Address Description R6 715 Snowdrop Ave At east end of property 18 m from McKenzie Ave centreline Height Relative to Ground [m] 2.5 Table 6-2 below shows the measured pre-project noise level at each location and the relevant noise impact thresholds from the Policy. Table 6-2: Residential Monitoring Results and Noise Impact Thresholds Measurement Location Pre-Project L dn [dba] Moderate Impact Post-Project Noise Threshold Total L dn [dba] Severe Impact R1 74 65.0 75.0 R2 71 65.0 74.5 R3 63* 65.0 68.7 R4 67 65.0 71.3 R5 70 65.0 73.6 R6 75 65.0 75.0 * Calculated based on 30-minute measurement and nearby 24-hour measurement According to the Policy, the noise exposures at R1, R2, R4 and R5 already exceed the Moderate impact threshold, and the noise exposure at R6 is at the Severe impact threshold. This means that the maintenance of current traffic noise at these locations post-project would present at least a Moderate impact. 6.2 Baseline Monitoring at Educational Facilities The short-term monitoring locations in the schools are shown below in Table 6-3. At each school, one to two classrooms that were exposed to the highest level of road traffic noise were chosen for monitoring. Table 6-3: Short-Term Measurement Locations Location Educational Facility Room(s) S1 École Marigold Elementary 13 S2 Spectrum Community School 317 and 324 S3 St. Joseph s Elementary School 103 and Portable The estimated L eq(max hr), calculated based on the short-term measurement results and hourly noise level variation from the nearest 24-hour baseline measurement, is shown in Table 6-4. 5 PAGE

Location Table 6-4: School Measurement Results and Noise Impact Threshold Room Measured L eq [dba] Estimated L eq(max hr) [dba] Noise Impact Threshold [dba] S1 13 44 46 40 S2 S3 317 34 36 40 324 34 36 40 Portable 51 54 40 103 38 41 40 According to the Policy, École Marigold Elementary and St. Joseph's Elementary already exceed the 40 dba threshold in the most affected classrooms. 7 NOISE MODELLING METHODOLOGY 7.1 Acoustical Model Transportation noise levels have been predicted using the French standard for road traffic noise prediction, NMPB-Routes-1996 (NMPB 1996), implemented in the outdoor sound propagation software Cadna/A, version 4.6. The Good Practice Guide for Noise Mapping points out that this standard is recommended by the European Commission as current best practice to obtain accurate prediction results (WG-AEN 2007). NMPB-Routes-96 specifies octave band sound power levels for roadways, dependant on traffic volumes, average travel speed, percentage of heavy vehicles (i.e., trucks, buses), road gradient and flow conditions (continuous, accelerating, decelerating vehicles). BKL has found that this standard provides a high level of agreement with traffic noise measurements conducted in BC. First order reflections were considered in the acoustic model. Model calculations were performed in octave bands, considering ground cover, topography and shielding objects (see following sections). 7.1.1 Ground Absorption The acoustic properties of the ground surface can have a considerable effect on the propagation of noise. Flat, non-porous surfaces such as concrete, asphalt, buildings, calm water, etc., are highly reflective to noise, and have a ground constant of G=0. Soft, porous surfaces such as foliage, loam, soft grass, fresh snow, etc., are highly absorptive to noise and have a ground constant of G=1. In order to approximate the ground effect on sound propagation, the ground surface has been modelled as absorptive (G=1) throughout except for road surfaces where the ground constant was set to G=0. 6 PAGE BKL CONSULTANTS LTD. 0890-15A REVISION 1 MAY 2016

7.1.2 Meteorological Conditions MCKENZIE INTERCHANGE PROJECT A temperature of 10 C and relative humidity of 80 per cent were used in the model settings to best represent weather conditions based on the selection available in Cadna/A. Favourable sound propagation was assumed to occur for 50 per cent of the time during the day and 100 per cent of the time during the night. Variations in temperature and humidity generally have little effect on the overall noise propagation. 7.1.3 Topography and Obstacles The intervening terrain has been modelled by directly importing ground contours of the area provided by USL. Ground contours were imported at a 1-metre elevation resolution. Future ground contour were modified based on the Project alignment geometry provided. Building outlines were provided by USL and imported directly into the noise model. 7.1.4 Roadway Geometry The existing highway alignment was modelled using aerial photographs provided by USL. Future Highway 1, interchange ramps, McKenzie Avenue, and Admirals Road alignments were provided by USL and imported directly into the noise model. 7.1.5 Traffic Inputs Future (2018 and 2038) highway traffic data was provided by McElhanney in their report Traffic Analysis Report DRAFT dated January 5, 2016. The future 2018 and future 2038 traffic volumes were averaged to estimate highway traffic volumes 10 years after Project completion (2028). Daily traffic volumes were calculated based on the assumption that the AADT is 10 times that of the PM peak hour. Both the 2015 and 2028 AADT values which were used in the model are listed in Table 7-1. Future truck percentages were assumed to remain the same as existing. Table 7-1: Increases from 2014 to 2028 in Annual Average Daily Traffic Road Section Direction 2015 AADT 2028 AADT West of McKenzie Westbound 41900 47925 Highway 1 West of McKenzie Eastbound 29700 34605 East of McKenzie Westbound 23800 27225 East of McKenzie Eastbound 23100 27010 Admirals Road South of Highway 1 2-way 5700 10550 McKenzie Avenue North of Burnside Road 2-way 29260 33315 South of Burnside Road 2-way 31100 35675 Burnside Road Entire Study Area 2-way 9750 10800 Highway 1 and McKenzie Interchange Admirals to Highway 1 Eastbound on-ramp 1-way - 1283 Highway 1 to Admirals 1-way - 514 7 PAGE

Road Section Direction 2015 AADT 2028 AADT Ramps Eastbound off-ramp Highway 1 to McKenzie Eastbound bus loop offramp McKenzie to Highway 1 Westbound on-ramp Highway 1 to McKenzie Westbound off-ramp 1-way 1-way 1-way - 4375-12092 - 883 Traffic was modelled at the future design s posted speed limits in the future scenario. Current traffic speeds are lower than posted speed limits near the McKenzie intersection due to congestion. Existing modelled speeds were determined using our baseline noise measurements as noted in Section 7.2. Traffic was corrected for either accelerating or decelerating noise emissions near the McKenzie intersection following best practice (WG-AEN 2007). Future off- and on-ramp traffic was also modelled using accelerating or decelerating noise emissions, as appropriate. All other road traffic was modelled for continuous flow conditions. Roadways were modelled with standard asphaltic pavement, except for elevated roadways (e.g., bridges, overpasses) which were modelled with standard concrete pavement. 7.2 Model Calibration The noise model was calibrated using the baseline location results described in Section 6. The major noise sources are road traffic from Highway 1 and McKenzie Avenue, and were modelled to show accurate correlation between the measurement and the noise model. Other roads were not included in the model. A scaling factor was used so the predicted existing noise levels in the model were within 1 dba of the measured levels. This factor was also applied to the future traffic volumes. 7.3 Receivers For all assessments, calculations were performed using point receivers at each noise-sensitive land use identified in the study area, e.g., residences and schools. The noise impact assessment was based on noise received at the second floor of dwellings, assumed to be a height of 4.3 metres above the ground. This was a conservative assumption because traffic noise levels were the same or higher at the second floor compared to the ground floor level. However, noise mitigation effectiveness was assessed at two heights: the first floor receiver height was set at 1.5 metres above the ground and the second floor receiver height was set at 4.3 metres above the ground. For schools, the noise impact assessment was based on noise received at the midpoint height of the five noise exposed classrooms, as measured in the field. Average noise contours were predicted on 5 metre by 5 metre grids at a height of 4.3 metres. Figure 7-1 shows an example 3-D view of receivers placed on building facades. 8 PAGE BKL CONSULTANTS LTD. 0890-15A REVISION 1 MAY 2016

Figure 7-1: Example 3-D View of Noise Source, Ground Contours and Receivers 8 NOISE PREDICTION RESULTS 8.1 Existing Scenario 2015 Figure 8-1 shows a contour plot of predicted existing L dn traffic noise levels. Calculated results in tabulated form at individual receivers are shown in Appendix C. The graphical contours are based on interpolation of predictions made on a 5 metre by 5 metre grid at receiver height of 4.3 metres. The predictions for individual receivers are based on specific coordinates of each point; therefore, the tabulated levels should be taken as more accurate in the event of any discrepancies. 9 PAGE

Figure 8-1: Predicted Existing Noise Contours 8.2 Future Scenario 2028 Figure 8-2 shows a contour plot of predicted future L dn traffic noise levels. Calculated results in tabulated form at individual receivers are shown in Appendix C. The graphical contours are based on interpolation of measurements made on a 5 metre by 5 metre grid at receiver height of 4.3 metres. The predictions for individual receivers are based on specific coordinates of each point; therefore, the tabulated levels should be taken as more accurate in the event of any discrepancies. 10 PAGE BKL CONSULTANTS LTD. 0890-15A REVISION 1 MAY 2016

Figure 8-2: Predicted Future Noise Contours 9 NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 9.1 Residences Table 9-1 summarizes the number of residences and impacts in each group. The charts in Figure 9-1 and Figure 9-2 show a graphical comparison of Project noise to the Policy in each group. Detailed tabulated results for each receiver are presented in Appendix C. In general, the increase in total L dn noise levels is less than 4 dba. The Policy assigns a Moderate impact if the baseline noise environment is predicted to be 65 dba regardless of any increase. The two Severe impacts found in Group 3 are a result of direct exposure from Highway 1 and relatively high increases in total noise level. These two factors result in the Severe impact threshold being exceeded. Most Moderate impacts are a result of a predicted baseline L dn of 65 dba or greater. Table 9-1: Noise Impact Assessment Summary for Residences Group Extent Number of Number Number of Moderate of Severe Residences Impacts Impacts 1 Northeast of interchange 30 13 0 2 Southwest of interchange 52 21 0 3 Northwest of interchange East of Wilkinson 35 12 2 11 PAGE

Group Extent Number of Residences Number of Moderate Impacts Number of Severe Impacts Road 4 5 6 Northwest of interchange West of Wilkinson Road 36 16 0 North of Burnside Road - West of McKenzie Avenue 10 8 0 North of Burnside Road - East of McKenzie Avenue 11 6 0 Total 174 76 2 Figure 9-1: Comparison of Pre- and Post-Project Noise 12 PAGE BKL CONSULTANTS LTD. 0890-15A REVISION 1 MAY 2016

Figure 9-2: Increase in Noise Relative to Pre-Project Noise 9.2 Educational Facilities Three schools (École Marigold Elementary, Spectrum Community and St. Joseph s Elementary) were identified in the study area. Future 2028 noise levels at the identified, worst affected classrooms were predicted using the noise model. Noise at École Marigold and Spectrum increased and remained the same respectively, while the raised Galloping Goose Trail resulted in a decrease in noise exposure at St. Joseph s. Table 9-2 below summarizes the noise impact at the school receivers. Table 9-2: Predicted Noise Impact for Educational Facilities Pre-Mitigation School Room Future 2028 Noise Impact L eq(max-hr) Threshold [dba] L eq(max-hr) [dba] Criterion Exceedance Exceeded? [dba] S1 13 48 40 Yes 8 S2 S3 317 36 40 No - 324 36 40 No - Portable 50 40 Yes 10 103 36 40 No - 13 PAGE

10 TRAFFIC NOISE MITIGATION MCKENZIE INTERCHANGE PROJECT Noise mitigation was considered for all residences in Moderate or Severe impact situations and all educational facilities with predicted classroom levels exceeding the applicable criterion. Figure 10-1 below shows the residences and schools which warrant noise mitigation consideration. Figure 10-1: Moderately or Severely Impacted Dwellings in the Study Area In general, noise mitigation options include constructing noise barriers, e.g., noise walls or earth berms; using low-noise pavements on roadways; controlling noise at the receiver by upgrading facades, e.g., adding storm windows, where residential unit density is low; improving HVAC systems in classrooms to eliminate the need to open windows where open windows are currently required; and reducing vehicle speeds or truck percentages. 10.1 Residences 10.1.1 Proposed Noise Wall Locations and Geometry The 3-D model considered six noise walls at fronting groups of residences identified as Moderately or Severely impacted. These six noise walls were studied for acoustical effectiveness and cost effectiveness. The extent and setback of each wall alignment was chosen to provide the best insertion loss (i.e., noise benefit) for the impacted dwellings behind the wall. The Policy states that a vertical noise barrier (wall) is limited to 5 metres in height. For this preliminary study, results for 3 metre high walls were provided for comparison with acoustical and cost effectiveness criteria. Where a wall of 3 metres did not meet the acoustical criteria, increasing the wall height could be considered in the detailed design phase, if cost-effective. Table 10-1 below describes noise wall locations and lengths. 14 PAGE BKL CONSULTANTS LTD. 0890-15A REVISION 1 MAY 2016

Table 10-1: Noise Wall Numbering, Location and Geometry Wall 1 2 3 5 6a 6b Wall Location Northeast of interchange At south edge of Galloping Goose Trail Southwest of interchange Between Highway 1 and Portage Road Northwest interchange South edge of Galloping Goose Trail West of McKenzie Avenue, North of Burnside Road At edge of right-of-way East of McKenzie Avenue, North of Burnside Road At edge of right-of-way East of McKenzie Avenue, approaching Interurban overpass At edge of right-of-way Number of Wall Wall Height Fronting Length [m] Residences [m] 13 400 3 19 1050 3 11 500 3 5 240 3 4 90 3 1 50 3 For each wall the setback distance was chosen with consideration for site-specific geographical contours and with the goal of maximizing the wall s acoustical effectiveness. The locations of each wall were confirmed as being within the MOTI right-of-way. Wall alignments and labelling can be found in Figure 10-2. Figure 10-2: Wall Alignments and Labelling Mitigation for Group 4 was reviewed but not further advanced because noise walls were predicted to be acoustically ineffective at any location, even at a height of 5 metres. This was due to the distance and height of the residences relative to the highway and the elevation profile of the intervening terrain. These residences are also beyond the project limit and as such do not qualify for noise mitigation according to the Policy. 15 PAGE

10.1.2 Wall Insertion Loss Predictions MCKENZIE INTERCHANGE PROJECT The performance of a noise barrier is very sensitive to the height of the receiver. Along the extent of the Project the majority of dwellings have a second storey. Hence, the insertion loss for a particular wall was predicted both at the first and second floor of each affected residence. Table 10-2 summarizes the mitigation effectiveness of each proposed wall. Table 10-2: Summary of Proposed Wall Alignments Wall Average Noise Benefit at Fronting Residences % of Fronting Residences with at Least 5 dba Noise Benefit First Floor [dba] Second Floor [dba] First Floor [dba] Second Floor [dba] 1 4 2 31% 8% 2 6 5 68% 58% 3 5 4 64% 64% 5 12 3 100% 20% 6a 6 3 100% 0% 6b 7 4 100% 0% At the first floor, Wall 1 does not have an average noise benefit that meets the 5 dba criterion. Only Wall 2 meets the 5 dba average noise benefit at the second floor for a 3 metre wall. Appendix C shows the noise impact and the insertion loss provided for each residence. Appendix D summarizes the insertion loss in a histogram for each wall for the effected fronting residences. Predicted noise contours of the future 2028 scenario with the modelled 3 metre height noise walls are shown in Figure 10-3. The difference in noise exposure between the existing noise levels and those post-mitigation is shown in Figure 10-4. Both figures show noise levels at a height of 4.3 metres. Figure 10-3: Predicted Future Noise Contours with Modelled Noise Walls 16 PAGE BKL CONSULTANTS LTD. 0890-15A REVISION 1 MAY 2016

Figure 10-4: Predicted Increase in Noise from Existing to Future with Mitigation 10.1.3 Cost-benefit Considerations Sixty-one Moderately impacted and two Severely impacted residences would directly benefit from the modelled noise walls. Using the Policy benchmark cost guidelines, a budget of $1,605,000 would be warranted for residential noise mitigation measures. Assuming an installed cost of $300 per square metre, 1,783 metres of 3 metre high noise wall could be constructed. Table 10-3 shows the predicted cost associated with each proposed noise wall alignment. Table 10-3: Cost Estimate of Proposed Wall Alignments Wall Wall Height [m] Wall Length [m] Estimated Installed Cost 1 3 400 $360,000 2 3 1,050 $945,000 3 3 500 $450,000 5 3 240 $216,000 6a 3 95 $85,500 6b 3 50 $45,000 Total 2335 $2,101,500 17 PAGE

The estimated installed cost of noise walls is higher than the benchmark mitigation cost guidelines. As noted in the Policy, The costs and benefits of mitigation measures must be weighed by MOTI Project Managers based on the particular conditions and considerations of each project. 10.2 Educational Facilities Based on the results in Section 9, the Policy s 40 dba criterion at educational facilities would be exceeded at some classrooms in two schools: École Marigold Elementary and at the portable at St. Joseph s Elementary. A noise wall was modelled at each facility to predict mitigated Project noise levels. To meet the criterion at École Marigold Elementary, a 3 metre noise wall was modelled on the north side of the Galloping Goose Trail. The model predicted an insertion loss of 8 dba at the worst affected classrooms which would result in meeting the 40 dba criterion. Assuming an installed cost of $300 per square metre, the installed cost of this noise wall would be $126,000. Mitigation for the portable at St. Joseph s Elementary was reviewed by not further advanced because noise walls were preliminarily predicted to provide less than the 10 dba noise benefit required to meet the criterion. It was found that a 120 metre long, 5 metre high noise wall along McKenzie Drive would give a noise benefit of 6 dba. Other forms of noise mitigation such as facade, window, or HVAC improvements would need to be investigated to meet the Policy criterion. 11 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS BKL was retained by USL to conduct a noise impact assessment for the McKenzie Interchange Project. The noise impact assessment was completed by performing a baseline noise survey, modelling baseline and future noise levels, rating future noise levels using the MOTI Policy, and modelling and predicting the effectiveness of potential mitigation strategies. The analysis concluded that, out of 174 residences, there are 76 residences with a Moderate noise impact and two with a Severe noise impact. Two schools, École Marigold Elementary and St. Joseph s Elementary (at its portable classroom), were also found to exceed the maximum onehour equivalent noise levels outlined by the Policy. Noise mitigation in the form of noise walls can be an effective approach to meet the Policy criteria. Three metre high noise walls were modelled and most were found to be acoustically effective. However, the estimated installed cost would exceed the Policy s residential noise mitigation cost guidelines so increasing noise wall heights further may not be cost effective. A noise wall was also found to provide insufficient noise mitigation for the portable classroom at St. Joseph s Elementary; additional mitigation options would need to be investigated, including providing alternative ventilation so that windows can be closed and building facade improvements. We recommend that further noise mitigation detailed design be undertaken in accordance with the Policy. 18 PAGE BKL CONSULTANTS LTD. 0890-15A REVISION 1 MAY 2016

12 REFERENCES MCKENZIE INTERCHANGE PROJECT American National Standards Institute (ANSI). 1983. Specification for Sound Level Meters. Reference No. ANSI_S1.4-1983_(R2006). New York, Acoustical Society of America. British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (BC MOTI). 2014. Traffic Data Program. http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/trafficdata (accessed April/May 2014). European Commission Working Group Assessment of Exposure to Noise (WG-AEN). 2007. Good Practice Guide for Strategic Noise Mapping and the Production of Associated Data on Noise Exposure. Brussels, European Commission. International Organisation for Standardization (ISO). 1996. Acoustics - Attenuation of Sound During Propagation Outdoors - Part 2: General Method of Calculation. Reference No. ISO 9613-2:1996. Geneva, International Organisation for Standardization. NMPB-Routes-96. 1997. Methode de calcul incluant les effets meteorologiques, version experimentale, Bruit des infrastructures routieres. Lyon, Centre d etudes sur les reseaux, les transports, l urbanisme et les constructions publiques. Service d etudes techniques des routes et autoroutes - Laboratoire central des ponts et chaussees - Centre scientifique et technique de batiment. 19 PAGE

APPENDIX A GLOSSARY A-weighting A standardized filter used to alter the sensitivity of a sound level meter with respect to frequency so that the instrument is less sensitive at low and high frequencies where the human ear is less sensitive. Also written as dba. ambient/existing level The pre-project noise or vibration levels. critical ratio (CR) - The ratio between the power in the pure tone at threshold and the power per hertz (spectrum level) of the background noise. decibel The standard unit of measurement for sound pressure and sound power levels. It is the unit of level that denotes the ratio between two quantities that are proportional to pressure or power. The decibel is 10 times the logarithm of this ratio. The reference pressure used for airborne sound is 20 μpa, while the typical reference pressure used for underwater sound is 1 μpa. Also written as db. equivalent sound level - The steady level that would contain the same amount of energy as the actual time-varying level. Although it is, in a sense, an average, it is strongly influenced by the loudest events because they contain the majority of the energy. frequency The number of times that a periodically occurring quantity repeats itself in one second. frequency spectrum Distribution of frequency components of a noise or vibration signal. hertz The unit of acoustic or vibration frequency representing the number of cycles per second. impulsive sound Non-continuous sound characterized by brief bursts of sound pressure. The duration of a single burst of sound is usually less than one second. intermittent Non-continuous or transient noise or vibration that occurs at regular or irregular time intervals with each occurrence lasting more than about five seconds. metric Measurement parameter or descriptor. noise - Noise is unwanted sound that carries no useful information and tends to interfere with the ability to receive and interpret useful sound. Noise-sensitive receivers A place occupied by species with a high sensitivity to noise. octave bands A standardized set of bands making up a frequency spectrum. The centre frequency of each octave band is twice that of the lower band frequency. sound The fluctuating motion of air or other elastic medium which can produce the sensation of sound when incident upon the ear. sound power The total sound energy radiated by a source per unit time. APPENDIX A-1 PAGE

APPENDIX B INTRODUCTION TO SOUND AND ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE ASSESSMENT B.1 General Noise Theory The two principal components used to characterize sound are loudness (magnitude) and pitch (frequency). The basic unit for measuring magnitude is the decibel (db), which represents a logarithmic ratio of the pressure fluctuations in air relative to a reference pressure. The basic unit for measuring pitch is the number of cycles per second, or hertz (Hz). Bass tones are low frequency and treble tones are high frequency. Audible sound occurs over a wide frequency range, from approximately 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz, but the human ear is less sensitive to low- and very high frequency sounds than to sounds in the mid-frequency range (500 to 4,000 Hz). Aweighting networks are commonly employed in sound level meters to simulate the frequency response of human hearing, and A-weighted sound levels are often designated dba rather than db. If a continuous sound has an abrupt change in level of 3 db it will generally be noticed, while the same change in level over an extended period of time will probably go unnoticed. A change of 6 db is clearly noticeable subjectively and an increase of 10 db is generally perceived as being twice as loud. B.2 Basic Sound Metrics While the decibel, or A-weighted decibel, is the basic unit used for noise measurement, other indices are also used to describe environmental noise. The equivalent sound level, abbreviated L eq, is commonly used to indicate the average sound level over a period of time. The L eq represents the steady level of sound which would contain the same amount of sound energy as the actual time-varying sound level. Although the L eq is an average, it is strongly influenced by the loudest events occurring during the time period because these events contain most of the sound energy. Another common metric used is the L 90, which represents the sound level exceeded for 90 per cent of a time interval and is typically referred to as the background noise level. The L eq can be measured over any period of time using an integrating sound level meter. Some common time periods used are 24 hours, noted as the L eq24, daytime hours (7 am to 10 pm), noted as the L d, and nighttime hours (10 pm to 7 am), noted as the L n. As the impact of noise on people is judged differently during the day and during the night, 24-hour noise metrics have been developed that reflect this. The day-night equivalent sound level (L dn ) is one metric commonly used to represent community noise levels. It is derived from the L d and the L n with a 10 db penalty applied to the L n to account for increased human sensitivity to nighttime noise. APPENDIX B-1 PAGE

APPENDIX C NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT RESULT TABLE Names of residences are grouped according to zones as shown in Figure 5-1 and counted starting from west to east. The noise impact of each dwelling was assessed at the second floor height of 4.3 metres above the ground. Name (Group No.) L dn (dba) Pre- Post- Project Project Allowable Increase in L dn (dba) Moderate Severe Impact Impact Predicted Change (dba) Noise Impact Predicted Insertion Loss (dba) 1 st Floor 2 nd floor (1.5 m) (4.3 m) G1-001 68.9 69.3 0.0 3.8 0.4 Moderate 4.5 0.7 G1-002 67.3 67.6 0.0 4.3 0.3 Moderate 3.5 1.2 G1-003 66.6 67 0.0 4.3 0.4 Moderate 2.4 0.9 G1-004 64.1 64.7 1.0 5.3 0.6 Minor 1.4 0.5 G1-005 67.6 67.8 0.0 4.1 0.2 Moderate 2.4 0.7 G1-006 62.8 63.6 2.0 5.7 0.8 Minor 0.2 0.2 G1-007 67.5 67.8 0.0 4.1 0.3 Moderate 2.2 0.6 G1-008 63 63.9 2.0 5.7 0.9 Minor 0.1 0.2 G1-009 67.7 67.9 0.0 4.1 0.2 Moderate 3.6 1.0 G1-010 63.5 64.2 1.0 5.3 0.7 Minor 0.3 0.2 G1-011 67.5 67.7 0.0 4.1 0.2 Moderate 4.0 1.2 G1-012 62.6 63.4 2.0 5.7 0.8 Minor 0.6 0.4 G1-013 67.4 67.6 0.0 4.3 0.2 Moderate 3.9 1.2 G1-014 61.7 62.2 2.7 6.1 0.5 Minor 0.4 0.4 G1-015 67.4 67.7 0.0 4.3 0.3 Moderate 3.9 1.4 G1-016 61.3 61.4 2.9 6.6 0.1 Minor 1.0 0.9 G1-017 67 67.6 0.0 4.3 0.6 Moderate 3.9 1.5 G1-018 67.1 67.8 0.0 4.3 0.7 Moderate 5.0 2.3 G1-019 63.8 64.7 1.0 5.3 0.9 Minor 5.4 3.2 G1-020 65.5 66 0.0 4.6 0.5 Moderate 4.9 4.2 G1-021 61.5 59.6 2.7 6.1-1.9 Minor 0.1 0.1 G1-022 66.4 66.9 0.0 4.6 0.5 Moderate 4.8 5.0 G1-023 60.7 59.2 2.9 6.6-1.5 Minor 2.8 2.0 APPENDIX C-1 PAGE

Name (Group No.) L dn (dba) Pre- Post- Project Project Allowable Increase in L dn (dba) Moderate Severe Impact Impact Predicted Change (dba) Noise Impact Predicted Insertion Loss (dba) 1 st Floor 2 nd floor (1.5 m) (4.3 m) G1-024 62.1 59.4 2.7 6.1-2.7 Minor 2.5 2.9 G1-025 63.3 60.4 2.0 5.7-2.9 Minor 4.2 3.0 G1-026 64.3 61.2 1.0 5.3-3.1 Minor 4.0 2.2 G1-027 63.2 60.5 2.0 5.7-2.7 Minor 0.0 0.0 G1-028 64.5 63.3 0.0 4.9-1.2 Minor 0.0 0.0 G1-029 64.6 64.3 0.0 4.9-0.3 Minor 0.0 0.0 G1-030 63.8 62.9 1.0 5.3-0.9 Minor 0.1 0.0 G2-001 64.6 65.9 0.0 4.9 1.3 Moderate 0.9 0.7 G2-002 60.9 62.7 2.9 6.6 1.8 Minor 2.2 0.7 G2-003 60.7 61.5 2.9 6.6 0.8 Minor 0.1 0.0 G2-004 61 62 2.9 6.6 1.0 Minor 0.0 0.0 G2-005 65.7 66.8 0.0 4.6 1.1 Moderate 3.3 1.5 G2-006 62.2 63.5 2.7 6.1 1.3 Minor 0.0 0.0 G2-007 66.2 66.9 0.0 4.6 0.7 Moderate 3.7 2.0 G2-008 68.5 68.3 0.0 3.8-0.2 Moderate 3.5 2.3 G2-009 55.5 56 4.6 9.3 0.5 Minor 0.1 0.1 G2-010 69.3 68.7 0.0 3.8-0.6 Moderate 3.9 2.4 G2-011 55.3 56.3 5.0 10.0 1.0 Minor 1.2 1.6 G2-012 57.7 58.9 3.8 8.1 1.2 Minor 4.0 0.3 G2-013 57.1 58.2 4.2 8.7 1.1 Minor 0.1 0.1 G2-014 58.3 59.4 3.8 8.1 1.1 Minor 0.0 0.0 G2-015 63.4 63.5 2.0 5.7 0.1 Minor 5.3 3.1 G2-016 53.6 53.5 5.5 10.7-0.1 Minor 0.3 0.2 G2-017 67.5 67.3 0.0 4.1-0.2 Moderate 5.6 3.1 G2-018 61.6 62.8 2.7 6.1 1.2 Minor 5.6 3.8 G2-019 54.3 55.8 5.5 10.7 1.5 Minor 5.2 5.3 G2-020 54.6 54.7 5.0 10.0 0.1 Minor 4.0 3.7 G2-021 59.9 61.7 3.2 7.1 1.8 Minor 5.5 6.0 Appendix C-2 Page BKL CONSULTANTS LTD. 0890-15A REVISION 1 MAY 2016

Name (Group No.) L dn (dba) Pre- Post- Project Project Allowable Increase in L dn (dba) Moderate Severe Impact Impact Predicted Change (dba) Noise Impact Predicted Insertion Loss (dba) 1 st Floor 2 nd floor (1.5 m) (4.3 m) G2-022 57.4 57.8 4.2 8.7 0.4 Minor 6.2 4.0 G2-023 69 71.8 0.0 3.8 2.8 Moderate 7.8 4.7 G2-024 56.9 55.2 4.2 8.7-1.7 Minor 6.0 4.0 G2-025 60 60 3.2 7.1 0.0 Minor 7.1 5.9 G2-026 65.2 67.9 0.0 4.9 2.7 Moderate 8.8 3.9 G2-027 66.3 69 0.0 4.6 2.7 Moderate 6.5 5.1 G2-028 60.6 61.6 2.9 6.6 1.0 Minor 7.5 6.1 G2-029 66.2 69.8 0.0 4.6 3.6 Moderate 9.1 5.8 G2-030 57.5 61.4 3.8 8.1 3.9 Minor 9.1 7.4 G2-031 60.8 65.3 2.9 6.6 4.5 Moderate 7.2 7.0 G2-032 59.6 62.9 3.2 7.1 3.3 Minor 7.1 5.8 G2-033 58.7 62 3.5 7.6 3.3 Minor 6.2 4.3 G2-034 58.5 61.1 3.5 7.6 2.6 Minor 3.7 4.3 G2-035 68.7 71.8 0.0 3.8 3.1 Moderate -0.2 2.1 G2-036 58.2 60.4 3.8 8.1 2.2 Minor 6.8 5.0 G2-037 57.4 60.2 4.2 8.7 2.8 Minor 5.4 6.6 G2-038 61.3 63.3 2.9 6.6 2.0 Minor 7.3 3.9 G2-039 60.1 62.2 3.2 7.1 2.1 Minor 5.7 5.4 G2-040 69.3 70.8 0.0 3.8 1.5 Moderate 7.9 8.2 G2-041 73.3 74.4 0.0 2.0 1.1 Moderate 7.6 6.8 G2-042 56.2 57.9 4.6 9.3 1.7 Minor 5.0 4.1 G2-043 64 65.4 1.0 5.3 1.4 Moderate 5.8 4.6 G2-044 63 64.8 2.0 5.7 1.8 Minor 4.3 4.1 G2-045 66.2 68.1 0.0 4.6 1.9 Moderate 3.0 4.0 G2-046 60.3 61.7 3.2 7.1 1.4 Minor 4.1 2.9 G2-047 69.8 71.3 0.0 3.6 1.5 Moderate 7.9 4.9 G2-048 60.8 62.7 2.9 6.6 1.9 Minor 6.2 5.5 G2-049 71.4 73.1 0.0 3.5 1.7 Moderate 9.1 9.2 APPENDIX C-3 PAGE

Name (Group No.) L dn (dba) Pre- Post- Project Project Allowable Increase in L dn (dba) Moderate Severe Impact Impact Predicted Change (dba) Noise Impact Predicted Insertion Loss (dba) 1 st Floor 2 nd floor (1.5 m) (4.3 m) G2-050 72.1 73.7 0.0 3.0 1.6 Moderate 9.1 6.0 G2-051 70.1 71.7 0.0 3.6 1.6 Moderate 9.0 7.2 G2-052 68.6 70.3 0.0 3.8 1.7 Moderate 6.8 6.2 G3-001 58.1 61.5 3.8 8.1 3.4 Minor 4.7 3.7 G3-002 59.9 64.1 3.2 7.1 4.2 Moderate 5.5 4.5 G3-003 58.2 60.5 3.8 8.1 2.3 Minor 3.8 2.7 G3-004 62.4 64.8 2.7 6.1 2.4 Moderate 6.0 5.0 G3-005 70.5 72.7 0.0 3.5 2.2 Moderate 8.3 7.0 G3-006 60.6 63.5 2.9 6.6 2.9 Minor 6.3 4.1 G3-007 61.1 63.7 2.9 6.6 2.6 Minor 4.0 3.4 G3-008 67.8 70.7 0.0 4.1 2.9 Moderate 7.7 6.5 G3-009 65 68.2 0.0 4.9 3.2 Moderate 7.5 5.7 G3-010 61.2 64.6 2.9 6.6 3.4 Moderate 2.4 3.0 G3-011 68.6 72.9 0.0 3.8 4.3 Severe 7.4 4.4 G3-012 59.6 64.1 3.2 7.1 4.5 Moderate 1.8 3.2 G3-013 55.4 59.3 5.0 10.0 3.9 Minor 1.1 3.5 G3-014 58.7 62.1 3.5 7.6 3.4 Minor 1.5 2.3 G3-015 65.7 71 0.0 4.6 5.3 Severe 3.3 2.4 G3-016 58.7 61.3 3.5 7.6 2.6 Minor 2.4 0.9 G3-017 65.9 69.3 0.0 4.6 3.4 Moderate 1.1 0.6 G3-018 63.7 65.2 1.0 5.3 1.5 Moderate 1.9 2.1 G3-019 62.8 64.6 2.0 5.7 1.8 Minor 2.7 2.8 G3-020 62.5 65 2.0 5.7 2.5 Minor 7.0 5.3 G3-021 60.6 62.3 2.9 6.6 1.7 Minor 1.4 1.3 G3-022 60 61.7 3.2 7.1 1.7 Minor 2.2 1.9 G3-023 64.1 66.5 1.0 5.3 2.4 Moderate 8.2 6.1 G3-024 56.4 58.3 4.6 9.3 1.9 Minor 0.9 0.7 G3-025 56.4 58.5 4.6 9.3 2.1 Minor 2.1 1.5 Appendix C-4 Page BKL CONSULTANTS LTD. 0890-15A REVISION 1 MAY 2016